JP> With respect, Ernie, I don't think it's that simple.  The
JP> Constitution, says **NOTHING** about term limits.  Yet I don't
JP> believe that the founders ever envisioned a permanent political
JP> class.  I think they figured a man would spend a few years in
JP> politics out of civic responsibility, then go back to his private
JP> life.  In that sense, term limits is an attempt to restore the
JP> founders concepts.
There were two factors that made for almost automatic term limits early 
in our country's history. The first was the fact that while the 
incumbent was in the nation's capitol, his challenger was back home in 
the district campaigning like crazy.
The second was that the Congresscritters didn't have the availability of 
economic controls and massive aid programs to buy votes with.
In addition, Congress has further limited competition with campaign 
"reform" laws that make it virtually impossible for a challenger, who 
has no connections to the Capitol Hill network, to raise enough money to 
go after an incumbent.
In the old days, you could go to a couple of sympathetic fat cats and 
get $100,000 for seed money. With the maximum individual contribution 
set at $1,000, that can't happen. Now, what you do is contact a 
professional lobbiest who throws a Capitol Hill reception at $1,000 a 
head and calls all his clients and associates. You still get your 
$100,000, but now you owe the lobbiest big time. Obviously, anyone who 
threatens to upset the status quo isn't going to get this kind of help 
so something approaching 90% of this money is raised for incumbents.
Just remember when a Congressman starts talking about campaign finance 
reform, it's not very likely that he's going to support a bill that 
jeapordizes his re-election.
___
 X RM 1.3 02881 X The PC portion of my brain has atrophied from lack of use.
--- Maximus/2 2.02
---------------